2013 (5) TMI 12 - AT - Customs

Drawback claim denied - As Authority viewed that query raised to the exporter appellant while processing the shipping bills was deficiency memo and when the appellant did not reply to the same drawback claim was deniable - Held that - Reading of the order dated 17.3.2010 passed by the Asst. Commissioner denying the claim it is conceivable that the claim of drawback made by the appellant suffers from deficiency which was brought to the notice of the appellant on 15.01.2010. It appears that annexure A appearing in appeal folder was accompanying document to the show cause notice dated 15.10.2010. It is not possible for a common man to understand as to the nature of deficiency of drawback claim conceived by Adjudicating Authority from a simple reading of show cause notice and annexure thereto to lead defence. Asst. Commissioner noticed that while processing shipping bills queries raised to the exporter resulted in deficiency memo which remained un-replied. On the ground of no reply, he rejected the claim of the appellant. Commissioner without looking into the gravity of the matter under Rule 13 and also to the violation of natural justice, proceeded to decide the issue under Rule 15 of Drawback Rules, 1995 hurriedly burring justice. As the circumstance of Rule 15 has not arisen because the appellant has been directed to resubmit the claim with the requisite documents he should not have been in a hurry to dismiss the prayer of the appellant. Once the original claim is under dispute and that reaches to its logical conclusion, supplementary claim is inconceivable. Thus resend the matter back to Asst. Commissioner directing him to issue a fresh notice stating clearly deficiency in respect of each shipping bill within 3 months of receipt of this order so that the appellant shall get recourse to natural justice.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of drawback claim by Asst. Commissioner.
2. Interpretation of Rule 15 of Customs, Central Excise Duty and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995.
3. Deficiency in processing shipping bills.
4. Consideration of supplementary claim and condonation of delay.
5. Violation of natural justice in decision-making.
6. Remand of the matter for fresh adjudication.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with the denial of a drawback claim by the Asst. Commissioner, leading to an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Customs. The Asst. Commissioner considered the query raised to the exporter as a deficiency memo, and when the appellant did not respond, the drawback claim was denied. The learned Commissioner upheld this decision, citing Rule 15 of the Drawback Rules, 1995, which pertains to the time limit for making a supplemental claim.

2. The appellant argued that both lower authorities failed to apply the law appropriately, leading to a misconception of the issue. The appellant contended that the deficiency memo did not provide reasons for the deficiency nor allow for the appellant's submissions to be considered. The appellant highlighted Rule 13, emphasizing the need for a proper process in considering a deficient drawback claim to ensure natural justice.

3. The judgment discusses the power of the Commissioner to condone delays in supplementary claims under Rule 15. However, the court found that the supplementary claim was premature as the original claim was still under dispute. The appellant was directed to resubmit the claim with the necessary documents, indicating that the stage for a supplementary claim had not yet arisen.

4. The court noted a violation of natural justice in the Commissioner's decision-making process. It was observed that the Commissioner hastily dismissed the appellant's prayer without considering the gravity of the matter under Rule 13. The judgment emphasized the importance of following due process and providing the appellant with an opportunity to defend against deficiencies in the claim.

5. To address the dispute, the court remitted the matter back to the Asst. Commissioner for fresh adjudication. The Asst. Commissioner was directed to issue a fresh notice clearly stating the deficiencies in each shipping bill, allowing the appellant to respond within a specified timeframe. The court stressed the need for a fair and transparent process to ensure that both parties have the opportunity to present their case effectively.

6. In conclusion, the judgment set aside the Commissioner's order and instructed the Asst. Commissioner to re-adjudicate the matter within the prescribed time frame. The court aimed to facilitate a just resolution of the dispute by ensuring that proper procedures were followed and natural justice was upheld throughout the adjudication process.